Hi All, I have been given the understanding through browsing Cameralabs and other sites that photos taken in RAW are usually more dtailed than those taken in JPEG, stands to reason since the RAW file seems to be bigger thus containe more data. right?
however, I was comparing some images I took the other day, I compared the RAW and JPEG conversions side by side through my View NX software from the Nikon site, and flicking between the two on 100% size, it seemed to me at least that the RAW file was actually sifter and less sharp than the converted JPEG file! what's going on? I only othewrwise ise RAW if I need to shoot in low light with a fast shutter speed so I can then push the exposure later if I need to, but how come the difference in apparent sharpness or quality?

Basically when you shoot Jpeg, you are really shooting RAW and having your camera convert them to Jpeg for you. In doing this the camera adds sharpening hence making your shots look sharper, try shooting RAW + Jpeg to see the same shot sharper in one and less sharp in the other. To get this affect shooting RAW you need to add sharpening in lightroom/iphoto/GIMP/photoshop/whatever

oh right that's interesting, so the RAW is actually what is recorded and the JPEG isn't actually exactly the same, but a sharpened version of the RAW image... huh. so apart from being able to push the exposure and WB in RAW there's not a whole lot to be gained in shooting RAW? I only use it in instances where I need a fast shutter speed and there isn't enough light so I can just tweak it in viewNX afterwards, otherwise I just shoot JPEG. otherwise it's just a bit of a pain having to convert well exposed photos when if I shot them in JPEG i'd not have to do it...

If you *need* the ultimate in detail, manual raw processing can get you that bit more detail. Different raw converters have different characteristics where you might find one has something more pleasing to you than another. But already we're looking into fine details here. If jpeg is "good enough" there's no reason to stop using it. Even jpegs are very editable, although of course you'll have slightly less potential than the raw.

A jpeg is a compressed file. If you edit it and save it the new file is compressed again. Repeated edits and saves mean a gradual degradation of the detail in the image. A raw file can be edited but you still can retain the original and edit it as many times as you like with different WB, exposure etc. Raw is better but for most people I doubt they can tell the difference. Jpegs are usually punchier and sharper than a raw file straight from the camera but you have more manipulative latitude with the raw file.

cameras have a poor jpg conversion algorithm,that's why Lightroom,Photoshop & other professional softwares exist. so it's not only the tones of advantages raw has over jpg,but also the better jpg you can obtain at home!

Having shot RAW-only, RAW+JPG and JPG only, I personally don't find that the kind of pictures I like to create, get any "better" for me by using RAW files - but it does take significantly longer to process RAW files.

So, I shoot JPGs happily.

The JPEG standard is a compression algorithm and some image-information will be lost when compressing. However, the extent and how noticeable it is, varies with the image.

I would encourage anyone/everyone to shoot RAW + JPG for several sessions to determine for themselves, if it appears to make any real or even important difference. Shoot your favorite types of images in your preferred type of light and post-process the RAW and the JPG file separately. Print both in 18X12-inch or more and do the comparison.

Just pick the very best of your shots and do it with and then decide.
Do your very best with both versions and compare.

Not every image is "better" because of the potential for more detail or dynamic range - but some certainly can be. It all depends on what you want from your images.

Although I disagree with Razvan about the stupidity of the arguments about size and convenience, I agree with the crazy-hair-guy's notion about: why spend money on all this great equipment and not get the "best" out of them. Which is why I think the best way is to make your own decision, based on a comparison of your results.

....ultimately it is completely irrelevant how you arrived at the end-result - all that matters is if you like your images or not...whether you used a cell-phone camera, $100 Lensbaby optics or even JPGs to produce it...

Jpeg is what I shoot in if I can't be bothered to edit the photos as tall the editing is done in camera - sharpening ect.

Raw is what I use when I can be bothered to edit. Basically the camera has done none of the editing and still has all the information available to use. When you process it through lightroom you can edit in much more precise detail and your options are far greater.

I used to just shoot jpg, now I shoot both for convenience and time saving. Happy with jpg`s most of the time. I share many photos with family of family events and jpg is mostly ok for that.
But there has been the odd occasion where raw has made a big difference, ie when sister wanted a bigger print or when the exposure or lighting was not ideal.

I can definitely get a better result using canon dpp and converting it to jpg or transferring it to photoshop and then converting it. There is much more room to push contrast, shadows, colours, highlights and sharpness. But then you don`t always need or want to do that.